On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:55:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The end result is roughly the same, but it's a lot less churn, and it's > > more likely for new callers to get it right, because they have to go the > > extra mile to ignore the error. I say "roughly" because it treats cases > > we missed as "die", whereas yours leaves them as "ignore". I find it > > highly unlikely that any of them actually _want_ the ignore behavior, > > though. > > Yes, I like this approach better. It admittedly is more risky in > that it would die if the conversion missed a case that should > ignore, but I suspect that such a breakage would be found rather > quickly (and the one that goes latent are the ones that do not > matter in practice because people would not encounter them). > > > I'm just pondering, though. I don't find the "or_die" variant bad at > > all, so if you really prefer it, I don't mind. > > > > Just to get a sense of what the reverse would look like, I worked up the > > patch below (which compiles but does not link, as I did not actually > > implement the "gently" form). Some error-checking call-sites are > > converted to the "die" form, because that's essentially what happens > > anyway (and I'd venture to say that the config code can provide a much > > better error message). > > This variant certainly looks nicer to me, for the reasons give above. Okay, thanks for your feedback. I'll create a new version next week, then. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature